Skip to comments.The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Posted on 07/02/2008 1:51:40 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
***The Protestant Reformers follows the Palestinian canon of Scripture (39 books), which was not officially recognized by Jews until around 100 A.D.***
Yet the Geneva bible and KJV both origionaly contained the Apocrypha books.
I have read them and find them generaly harmless pious works of fiction running the leingth from rediculous (Tobias) to interesting (Macabees) to good moral lessons in the Wisdom books.
As for accuracy, were the SPARTANS really childen of Abraham as Maccabes and the historian Josephus says they were?
These should be placed along with the Shepherd of Hermas in the pious reading but not cannonical books.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
See post #50.
That pretty much shatters all protestant claims. If translations in the vernacular existed before the year 1000, then Wycliffe did not create the first non-latin bible in england.
Maccabees contains the origin of Hanukkah.
why is it not in the Hebrew Canon?
C'mon now. The whole concept of cuius regio, eius religio was forced BECAUSE of the Reformation, which lead to Catholics being killed in Protestant lands, and vice versa.
Outstanding, my friend! That’s a “keeper” in the ol’ apologetics file!
***Outstanding, my friend! Thats a keeper in the ol apologetics file!***
I believe that more Catholics need to understand the Scriptural basis of Catholicism, as opposed to the creation of any theology at any time for any reason (or not).
It does not arise with me; I merely disseminate it. But our learned Protestant friends tend to quiet down or else to point elsewhere once this is posted.
“The scholar Jerome undertook the task. Jerome used the best texts he could find (including Hebrew when available), and produced the so-called Vulgate (Common Language) Bible. Again, these included the Deuterocanonical books, and this Bible was considered the authoritative translation for centuries”
Jerome did not consider the Apocryphal Books as Scripture or canonical.
This preface, also known as the Prologus Galeatus, “Helmeted Preface,” was written by Jerome about the year 391. In it he maintains that, for the Old Testament, only the Hebrew books traditionally regarded as Holy Scripture by the Jews are canonical, and the extra books of the Septuagint “are not in the canon.”
St. Jerome’s Prologue to the Books of the Kings 2
That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters is testified also by the Syrian and Chaldaaen languages, which for the most part correspond to the Hebrew; for they have twenty-two elementary sounds which are pronounced the same way, but are differently written. The Samaritans also write the Pentateuch of Moses with just the same number of letters, differing only in the shape and points of the letters. And it is certain that Esdras, the scribe and teacher of the law, after the capture of Jerusalem and the restoration of the temple by Zerubbabel, invented other letters which we now use, for up to that time the Samaritan and Hebrew characters were the same. In the book of Numbers, moreover, where we have the census of the Levites and priests [Num. 3:39], the same total is presented mystically. And we find the four-lettered name of the Lord [tetragrammaton] in certain Greek books written to this day in the ancient characters. The thirty-seventh Psalm, moreover, the one hundred and eleventh, the one hundred and twelfth, the one hundred and nineteenth, and the one hundred and forty-fifth, although they are written in different metres, are all composed [as acrostics] according to an alphabet of the same number of letters. The Lamentations of Jeremiah, and his Prayer, the Proverbs of Solomon also, towards the end, from the place where we read “Who will find a steadfast woman?” are instances of the same number of letters forming the division into sections. Furthermore, five are double letters, viz., Caph, Mem, Nun, Phe, Sade, for at the beginning and in the middle of words they are written one way, and at the end another way. Whence it happens that, by most people, five of the books are reckoned as double, viz., Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with Kinoth, i.e., his Lamentations. As, then, there are twenty-two elementary characters by means of which we write in Hebrew all we say, and the human voice is comprehended within their limits, so we reckon twenty-two books, by which, as by the alphabet of the doctrine of God, a righteous man is instructed in tender infancy, and, as it were, while still at the breast.
The first of these books is called Bresith, to which we give the name Genesis. The second, Elle Smoth, which bears the name Exodus; the third, Vaiecra, that is Leviticus; the fourth, Vaiedabber, which we call Numbers; the fifth, Elle Addabarim, which is entitled Deuteronomy. These are the five books of Moses, which they properly call Thorath, that is, ‘Law.’
The second class is composed of the Prophets, and they begin with Jesus the son of Nave, which among them is called Joshua ben Nun. Next in the series is Sophtim, that is the book of Judges; and in the same book they include Ruth, because the events narrated occurred in the days of the Judges. Then comes Samuel, which we call First and Second Kings. The fourth is Malachim, that is, Kings, which is contained in the third and fourth volumes of Kings. And it is far better to say Malachim, that is Kings, than Malachoth, that is Kingdoms. For the author does not describe the Kingdoms of many nations, but that of one people, the people of Israel, which is comprised in the twelve tribes. The fifth is Isaiah; the sixth, Jeremiah; the seventh, Ezekiel; and the eighth is the book of the Twelve Prophets, which is called among them Thare Asra.
To the third class belong the Hagiographa, of which the first book begins with Job; the second with David, whose writings they divide into five parts and comprise in one volume of Psalms. The third is Solomon, in three books: Proverbs, which they call Parables, that is Masaloth; Ecclesiastes, that is Coeleth; and the Song of Songs, which they denote by the title Sir Assirim. The sixth is Daniel; the seventh, Dabre Aiamim, that is, Words of Days, which we may more descriptively call a chronicle of the whole of the sacred history, the book that amongst us is called First and Second Paralipomenon [Chronicles]. The eighth is Ezra, which itself is likewise divided amongst Greeks and Latins into two books; the ninth is Esther.
And so there are also twenty-two books of the Old Law; that is, five of Moses, eight of the prophets, nine of the Hagiographa, though some include Ruth and Kinoth (Lamentations) amongst the Hagiographa, and think that these books ought to be reckoned separately; we should thus have twenty-four books of the ancient Law. And these the Apocalypse of John represents by the twenty-four elders, who adore the Lamb and offer their crowns with lowered visage, while in their presence stand the four living creatures with eyes before and behind, that is, looking to the past and the future, and with unwearied voice crying, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and is and will be.”
This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. The first book of Maccabees is found in Hebrew, but the second is Greek, as can be proved from the very style.
Thanks for the fantastic survey of bible history!
It’s worth bookmarking and forwarding.
I think next time my grandchildren give me the schedule of their school's diversity event celebrations,I will tell them to take their Bible and read their schoolmates the original story taken smack from the only Bible that acknowledges it.
Not being a Biblical scholar,for their sake,I hope I am right.
***This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted [i.e. defensive] introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is outside of them must be placed aside among the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd [of Hermes?] are not in the canon. ***
Yet Jerome is not the Church.
The Church in Hippo (383), Carthage (393, 397 and 419) decided on Canon.
Jerome was a faithful servant in the Church.
However, we do not allow that an antiChristian Jewish pronouncement 60 years after Jesus died, resurrected and Ascended to Heaven dictates Christian Scripture.
And if 1 Maccabees is Hebrew, all reservations should be swept aside.
“It was about the Church’s power which is why our founders were so careful to separate Church and State”
Huh! So the Inquision was the reason “our founders were so careful to separate Church and State? Could you please link that...
What do you know about the history of the Inquision? I’m not going to make any excuses nor will I recognize smut. Try reading the historian Penny Dobbins - she’s a Wiccan!
Do you have any idea of what happened in Britain after the Reformation?
“Thanks for the fantastic survey of bible history!”
Further, St. Paul said this:
14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.We know that Timothy was a hellenized uncircumsized half-Jew (Acts 16). The Holy Scriptures Timothy learned "from his infancy" was decidedly the Septuagint. That would be "all scripture, inspired of God", according to Apostle St. Paul.
(2 Timothy 3)
Protestantism is, quite literally, counterscriptural fraud.
Reading Benvenuto Cellini's autobiography (born 1500) he (a great artist) often told his patrons ‘this coin/this art- is as good as ‘the ancients’ used to make’.
“Dark ages” is a term ot derision that educated people should not use, — a classic case of pot calling kettle dark. “Middle ages” is a calendaric reference, the Antiquity and the Renaissance being the dull brackets of the glorious middle.
Just remember that no one eats the pie for the crust.
The other thing is that the role of Aaron ben Moses ben Asher is not discussed. It is critical: he is the one who, in the 9th Century AD, added the vowel points and accents to the text. Prior to that time, there were several variant readings. As a result, the Masoretic text, considered authoritative by Protestants (and used by Luther in his translation), dates not from the time before Christ, dates not from the first century AD, but actually dates from the 9th Century AD.
Yes, we've read the whole Bible, although we don't revisit Leviticus very often. I don't recall that any of the children liked Ecclesiastes very much. Anoreth was annoyed by the author's fatalism, and observed that if a person's going to be so down in the dumps, he ought to go attack something. She has a Spanish soul.
“She has a Spanish soul.”
And James (or is it Pat?)has a Greek one...thanks be to God! :)
Pat is the Greek. Maybe James is a Phrygian - he has a head like a cinder block.
How are you?
“quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur.
[Translation from the Latin: “... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.”
Totalitarianism? Terrorism? You tell me.
Not that Catholics have any more of a troubling past compared to other religions but, continuing to give credence to totalitarian actions is disturbing.
IMO, religion is personal and should never be a reason for war or persecution.
“How are you?”
For an old man, I’m fine, thanks to God! And you and the chilluns?
The chilluns are always amusing. I just got back from running - it’s been reasonably cool the last few mornings.
And the earliest Greek is obviously a translation from an original Hebrew. (People who know the original and target language of a translation can spot it!) Do you have any evidence that later Hebrew copies are "forgeries" (as you so uncharitably suggest) rather than translations?
Your quotation "statistics" are meaningless. OT quotations in the NT are overwhelmingly from the Torah and Prophets and Psalms. Not all the c'tuvim are represented. And what of books quoted in the OT and NT that no longer exist?
Interesting that you cite St. Jerome's opinion here . . . do you follow him on other things as well, like bowing to the authority of the Pope above his own opinion?
Quite a few others others long before Luther rejected the Apocrypha (in fact the word “Apocrypha” was coined by St. Jerome in the 5th Century):
- Philo (20 B.C. - A.D. 40) was an Alexandrian Jewish Philosopher who quoted the Old Testament extensively, but never quoted from the Apocrypha as inspired.
- Josephus (A.D. 30 - 100) was a Jewish historian who explicitly excluded the Apocrypha when he cited the number of the Old Testament books.(neither Philo or Josephus, as early as they were, knew much about Christianity, nor did they have an axe to grind against it by excluding the Apocrypha).
- Old Testament Scripture is quoted often in the New Testament by Jesus and the New Testament writers, yet nowhere in the hundreds of quotations of OT Scripture are any from the Apocryphal books.
- The Jewish scholars at Jamnia in A.D. 90 did not recognize the Apocrypha.
- For the first four centuries, no council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired.
- Many of the early church giants spoke out against the Apocrypha, including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius.
- The translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible (Jerome, A.D. 340-420) rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. He argued with Augustine on this point. After initially refusing to even translate these books into Latin, he eventually bowed to pressure and made hurried translations of a few of the Apocryphal books. After his death (literally over his dead body), the Apocryphal books were brought into his Latin Vulgate.
- Luther wasn’t the only person during the Reformation to object to the Apocrypha. Many Roman Catholic scholars at that time rejected the Apocrypha. That’s why the Council at Trent went to the trouble of making their inclusion a matter of official canon.
So don’t be deceived into thinking the rejection of the Apocrypha began with the Protestant reformation. The history of apocryphal exclusion precedes its inclusion.
The Apocrypha Examined:
“The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)
21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:
1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of Gods authorship.
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
“From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.” ... “We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine...”(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. “The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. ‘The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.’” (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as “the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the “Apocrypha” (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jeromes Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) “Read the divine Scriptures namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated” (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasnt included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said “These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.”
Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?
Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha. If I were not afraid of absolute statements, I would say that their defense of the apocrypha is only because of the passage and their claims about its teachings.
The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. However, they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.
The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.
There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal
The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.
Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:
“For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them.” (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).
Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.
The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:
“...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement.” (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).
“...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers...” 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).
This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:
“Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you” (Matthew 10: 19-20).
“Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth” (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131.
This is refuted because:
Early Christians quote from the apocrypha proves it belongs in the Bible
Early Christians quoted from all kinds of uninspired writings other than the apocrypha. Why do Catholics not include these in their Bible’s
They were included in the Septuagint.
The Jews Never accepted the apocrypha as part of the Old testament canon.
The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), listed the apocrypha as Scripture. Since these same councils also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, they must accept them all.
False. The canon of the New Testament was set from the first century. It is Catholic myth that Catholics gave the world the Bible!
The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the “apocryphal collection” are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that “the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired.” The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that “Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther” were always included in the “history collection” of Jewish books and “Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon” were always included in the “poetry collection”. By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.
The apocrypha does not belong in the Bible because It IS not inspired.
Reasoned debate is welcome. We just get very little of it.
As far as studying history I do admit that the 12th and 13th Centuries is probably my favorite.
Some literary historians count the 12th-13th centuries as really the beginning of the Renaissance, definitely in Italy, but also in England.
True — maybe more 14C for England, but they used to date it as 16C!
Eleanor was apparently appalled at the barbaric lifestyle of Henry II, but I think that was more of his personal choice than a necessity.
septuagint.net says that:
Septuagint - What is It?
Septuagint (sometimes abbreviated LXX) is the name given to the Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures. The Septuagint has its origin in Alexandria, Egypt and was translated between 300-200 BC. Widely used among Hellenistic Jews, this Greek translation was produced because many Jews spread throughout the empire were beginning to lose their Hebrew language. The process of translating the Hebrew to Greek also gave many non-Jews a glimpse into Judaism. According to an ancient document called the Letter of Aristeas, it is believed that 70 to 72 Jewish scholars were commissioned during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus to carry out the task of translation. The term Septuagint means seventy in Latin, and the text is so named to the credit of these 70 scholars.
Septuagint - Influence on Christianity
The Septuagint was also a source of the Old Testament for early Christians during the first few centuries AD. Many early Christians spoke and read Greek, thus they relied on the Septuagint translation for most of their understanding of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings. Some modern Bible translations also use the Septuagint along side Hebrew manuscripts as their source text.
http://www.kalvesmaki.com/LXX/ says that:
THE SEPTUAGINT, derived from the Latin word for “seventy,” can be a confusing term, since it ideally refers to the third-century BCE Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, executed in Alexandria, Egypt. But the full story behind the translation and the various stages, amplifications, and modifications to the collection we now call the Septuagint is complicated.
The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285247 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest, Eleazar, in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. The seventy-two (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five) translators arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy’s gracious hospitality, and translated the Torah (also called the Pentateuch: the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) in seventy-two days. Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, 282 BCE is a commonly received date.
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred, noting a kind of consistency in the translation style of the Greek Penteteuch. Over the course of the three centuries following Ptolemy’s project, however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek. It is not altogether clear which book was translated when, and in what locale. It seems that sometimes a Hebrew book was translated more than once, or that a particular Greek translation was revised. In other cases, a work was composed afresh in Greek, yet was included in subsequent collections of the Scriptures. By observing technical terms and translation styles, by comparing the Greek versions to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and by comparing them to Hellenistic literature, scholars are in the process of stitching together an elusive history of the translations that eventually found their way into collections.
By Philo’s time the memory of the seventy-two translators was vibrant, an important part of Jewish life in Alexandria (Philo, Life of Moses 2.2544). Pilgrims, both Jews and Gentiles, celebrated a yearly festival on the island where they conducted their work. The celebrity of the Septuagint and its translators remained strong in Christianity. The earliest Christian references to the translation, from the mid-second century (SS Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), credit the entire Old Testament in Greek, whether originally written in Hebrew or not, to the seventy-two. Thus Christians conflated the Septuagint with their Old Testament canon (a canon that included the so-called apocrypha). For their part, Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila, in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint. By the second century Christian and Jewish leaders had cemented their position on the form and character of the Scriptures. By and large, Christians held to the peculiar, prophetic character of their Septuagint, and Jews rejected it.
Further rescensions of the Greek text in the fourth century are attested. Hesychius (fl. 3/4th c.) is said to have created a rescension for the Church in Egypt; Lucian (d. 312 CE), in Antioch. Some scholars posit other rescensions from this period. Thus, we find some Greek Church Fathers quoting the same Old Testament texts, but in very different forms. There is no indication, however, that this troubled Church leadership. The insistence on letter-for-letter, word-for-word accuracy in the Scriptures was a feature that was not to emerge in Christian thought for many centuries, and only then after a similar insistence appeared in Judaism and Islam. As far as most early Christians were concerned, any Greek version of the Old Testament read in the Church merited the term Septuagint.
Wherever Christianity spread, translations of the Hebrew Scriptures were made based on the LXX. Thus, it became the basis for translations made into Arabic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Old Latin, Coptic, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic.
It was a Church decision. Basing the acceptance of a previously accepted 400 year old translation on the basis of anti Christian Jewish council seems odd for Christians.
No....I'm basing my canon on this: [Luke 24:44-45] And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures.
Notice....no Deuts mentioned....only the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms. The canon of Old Testament was set by Ezra and Nehemiah after the return (500 B.C.) from Babylon [Nehemiah 9:38/10:1-27]. The Septuagint....and the Deuts followed much later, being commissioned by Ptolemy.....and were not inspired writings.
On this.....we totally agree!
The Holy Scriptures Timothy learned "from his infancy" was decidedly the Septuagint. That would be "all scripture, inspired of God", according to Apostle St. Paul.
This....of course, you can prove? How can you be certain it was not the Hebrew he learned as a child? He was half Hebrew as well as half Greek! Here's what the scripture says: [Acts 16:1] Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Sounds to me like the father could care less. Why wouldn't a Hebrew woman want to study Hebrew scriptures.... if she believed....that is.
Let's suppose you are correct (you're not)....but let's just suppose you are. So what! It still was not divinely inspired by God. The canon was closed by Ezra and Nehemiah. The "Deuts" are "Johnny come latelys".
Interesting that you cite St. Jerome's opinion here . . . do you follow him on other things as well, like bowing to the authority of the Pope above his own opinion?
Jerome was a historical figure. The fact that he did not want the Deuts in his Vulgate.....is historical fact!
"As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine." ........Jerome's preface to the books of Solomon.
Diaspora Jews, even in intact Jewish households, knew little Hebrew; they were the social stratum that had the need for Septuagint. Had Timothy’s parents been religious, they would have taken the trouble to at least circumcise him. No Hebrew scripture there.
Well, your argument here is with the Jewish Encyclopedia, for whom it's not counted as canonical in any case and so who have no dog in this fight!
As most students of the book [Judith] have recognized, it was originally written in Hebrew. The standard Greek version bears the unmistakable marks of a translation from this language. The idioms are those of classical Hebrew; and yet the dialect in which the book is composed is plainly a living one.
Derbe and Lystra hardly qualify for territories of the Diaspora. More likely as not....Timothy's mother had married a Greek man....and he simply took her back to Galatia to live.
Israel has been dispersed [II Kings 17:6] (721 B.C.) to Assyria and there is no Biblical mention of their return. According to Josephus [Antiquities Book XI, Chapter V, Paragraph 2]....millions were still living beyond the Euphrates during the first century. From there they pretty well migrated throughout the world. The Jews had been dispersed as well (595 B.C.) to Babylon and many had returned with Ezra and Nehemiah 70 years later [II Kings 25][Ezra and Nehemiah]. Chances are, Timothy's mother was a descendant of those who returned from Babylon, simply married a Greek man, and he took her back to Galatia to live.
Had Timothys parents been religious, they would have taken the trouble to at least circumcise him. No Hebrew scripture there.
We know Timothy's mother was religious because scripture tells us that: [Acts 16:1] Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek.
What scripture leaves us hanging with is.....what about Timothy's father? Was he the kind of guy that would allow his son to study anything religious......or was he an atheist.....was he an agnostic? We don't know. It is quite possible that Timothy took all his religious instruction through his mother....and maybe not until he was of age. If so, he probably studied Hebrew because that's what she was!
Happy Independence day to you.....my good FRiend!
There are two major reasons I can argue with the data found in your link. Number one....I'm not Jewish! Number two....they are not accurate in their presentation!
From your link: [Historical setting, third line]: Nebuchadnezzar is the king of Assyria.
Nebuchadnezzar was never the King of Assyria!
In scripture there are four individuals listed as "Kings of Assyria": Pul, Tiglathpilser, Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. Nebuchadnezzar is not among them.
In addition....your link does not claim that the Book of Judith is scripture.....as you said.
Happy Independence Day to you my good FRiend.
I agree it is all conjecture; still, the Septuagint was written for the needs of Jews outside of Palestine.
Further, if we are to get all literal here, St.Paul says “all Scripture” known to Timothy “since infancy”, so even if Timothy’s primary source was the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, including the deteurocanonical books are in that broad scope. It is hard to imagine Timothy, with interest in religion, never opening the Septuagint, written in his everyday language.
Have a blessed Independence Day, friend.
It wasn’t a FORMAL (Roman) Church decision until the Council of Trent starting in 1546 (the same year Luther died). Before Trent various loyal Roman Catholic scholars differed on whether to include these 2ndary canonical (the meaning of deutero...) books or not. Luther happened to side with those like St. Ambrose who agreed with the Jews that they were not scripture.
I’d encourage you to read some of the books, say, Tobit. Honestly, its narrative reads exactly like a silly fairy tale, or legend, not anything like the narrative portions of the Book of Daniel (written in the same general time period) or other historical narratives in the OT. It is interesting reading though, and does give background for the Sadducees’ question to Jesus about marriage in Heaven(Matt. 22:23-33).
I firmly believe there are 2 primary reasons (you decide the order) Trent decided to formally include the Apocrypha:
1: A verse or two in them supports an idea of Purgatory, and
2: They were NOT included as canonical by Luther...
Personally, I go by the Anglican understanding of the Apocryphal books: (from #6 of the Thirty-nine Articles):
“And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.”
As such they are typically included in Anglican bibles, however, only Anglo-Catholics would consider them in any way canonical.
The Church Fathers overall (all the way back to the Apostles) used the Septuagint which included the Deuterocanonicals. I posted somewhere on these threads a few days ago, the correlations of NT verses to them.
If you look at Church History, very few things actually got written down and made Church doctrine until heretical challenge was made, simply because everyone KNEW who the doctrine was and believed it.
Case in point - the Nicene Creed wasn’t created until the problem with Christology exploded.